RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2015-04108
		
							COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her administrative discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Subsequent to her deployment to Afghanistan, she experienced multiple symptoms which affected her ability to work.  Initially physicians were concerned what effect these symptoms would have on her unborn child.  Therefore she was placed on convalescent leave, and ultimately restricted duty.  While she was on convalescent leave, she was selected for force shaping and administratively separated [Reduction in Force], rather than being processed through a medical board, as recommended by her primary care manager. Immediately following her separation in March 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded her a 100 percent disability rating.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 June 2009.

On 14 July 2014 the applicant’s record met a Force Shaping Board to identify select officers for early separation.  The applicant was considered, but not selected for retention.

On 2 March 2015, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable character of service, transferred to the Air Force Reserve, and was credited with 5 years, 8 months, and 5 days of active service.  Her narrative reason for separation is “Reduction in Force.”

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision dated 15 June 2015, the applicant received an overall combined disability rating of 100 percent effective 3 March 2015.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant, which is included at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends amending the applicant’s record to reflect she was found unfit and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 60 percent disability rating, effective 2 March 2015.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s more than 1,000 pages of medical documentation from the time of her entry to military service, through the time of her high-risk pregnancy and related periods of convalescent leave, the onset of debilitating headaches with ocular and neurological manifestations, the limitation of her duty to half-days, the sole AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, with code “31” checked [instead of code “37”], and her glowing performance reports while serving as an attorney, the Medical Consultant opined that AFPC/DPANM acted within its authority to place the applicant on Medical Hold and to release her from Medical Hold and return her to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code; which would subject her to future reevaluations of her fitness to serve.  However, the applicant was designated for separation, making the action to return her to duty appear capricious, if not arbitrary, as the applicant implicitly infers.  On the other hand, one must consider the fact that most of the applicant’s complaints and a mental impairment arose or became worse after receiving notice of her non-selection for retention and well after her release from Medical Hold; thus, officials at AFPC/DPANM would have had no direct knowledge of the applicant’s escalating symptoms during calendar year 2015.

Although it may be unreasonable to believe the applicant was fit to return to duty, a clinical diagnosis does not automatically warrant release from service or disqualify a member from continued military service under retention standards.  Furthermore, the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under Title 38, United States Code, is authorized to offer compensation for any service-incurred medical condition, without regard to its proven or demonstrated impact upon a member’s fitness to serve or narrative reason for release from military service.  Nevertheless, the applicant’s ophthalmoplegic migraine headaches and its treatment, at some point, significantly interfered with her ability to safely and reliably perform her military duties as an attorney.  However, if found unfitting by a Physical Evaluation Board, a 10 percent rating would have been assigned, as noted in the Department of Veterans Affairs documentation, and the applicant would have only been eligible for discharge with severance pay and not a retirement.  The applicant’s complete listing of disability ratings were considered and there was insufficient evidence that the remaining conditions would have individually cut short the applicant’s career had she not been non-selected for retention.  Taking into consideration the probative value of the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs to assign a 50 percent disability rating for the applicant’s Anxiety Disorder [to include episodes of depression], the Medical Consultant recommends adopting this service-incurred medical condition as individually unfitting; as the applicant was still in the Air Force at the time of its likely emergence; which undoubtedly would have brought her ability to serve into question if not already separating.  The Department of Veterans Affairs examiner also attributed the applicant’s anxiety, to include episodes of depression, to [her] hemiplegic migraine condition.  However, the examiner also opined, since there is a likelihood of improvement, the assigned evaluation is not considered permanent and is subject to a future review examination. The Medical Consultant interprets this statement to mean, if found unfitting by the Military Department, there is an uncertain stability of the applicant’s Anxiety Disorder warranting a future re-evaluation; making consideration of placement on the TDRL appropriate.

Finally, there has been a probable error and injustice in the applicant’s discharge due to Reduction in Force, while enduring one or more medical conditions that warranted continuation of a Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board action.  Therefore, the Medical Consultant recommends finding the applicant unfit for military service and placement on the TDRL due to her Anxiety Disorder [associated with episodes of depressed mood], rated at 50 percent under Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 9413, and her ophthalmoplegic headaches, rated at 10 percent under VASRD code 8100.  The applicant should be evaluated by a neurologist, a neuro-ophthalmologist, and a psychiatrist at her subsequent TDRL re-evaluation for reassessment of her fitness to serve via the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  The applicant is also advised that medical conditions not found unfitting that worsens over time cannot be later included in her TDRL disability rating computation as unfitting; unless the direct result of or secondary to a condition initially found unfitting.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 April 2016, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s administrative discharge to a medical retirement.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to favorably consider this portion of the applicant’s request.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant partial relief.  Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the BCMR Medical Consultant’s alternative form of relief to place the applicant on the TDRL so that she can be properly assessed via the IDES and a determination made as to what her final disposition should be.  Additionally, the TDRL branch will notify the applicant regarding TDRL procedures and reporting instructions.  In view of the above, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

a. On 1 March 2015, she was found unfit to perform the duties of her office, rank, grade or rating by reason of physical disability, incurred while she was entitled to receive basic pay; that the disability was not due to intentional misconduct or willful neglect; that the disability was not incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; and that the disability was not the direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war.

b. On 2 March 2015, she was not released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve, but rather, effective 3 March 2015, her name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List with a combined disability rating of 60 percent due to the diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder [associated with episodes of depressed mood], rated at 50 percent under Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 9413, and her ophthalmoplegic headaches, rated at 10 percent under VASRD code 8100.

c. The applicant should be evaluated by a neurologist, a neuro-ophthalmologist, and a psychiatrist as soon as practicable for assessment of her fitness to serve via the Integrated Disability Evaluation System.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04108 in Executive Session on 13 September 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 September 2015, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
  24 March 2016.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 April 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.